Are some people really superior to others?

Are some people intrinsically superior in value to others? I do not mean in financial worth, for that is all too glaringly the case. No, I mean should some be regarded as better people than others? There are morally good, financially successful, genetically stronger, more handsome, more likeable....many differentiators but do they make it OK for some to look down on others? Put it another way:  are some humans inferior? Should some be looked down on because they look different, have been less fortunate, simply have less?
I pose these questions in the light of today's politics. One could be forgiven for thinking that my questions could or even should be answered in the affirmative, to listen to Government policies on welfare, taxation or border control. Yet all of my upbringing, education and acquired world view says "No!" All people should be entitled to equal respect, to rights. But if this is so, how can we allow those who simply have less (or nothing) to be demonized, excluded from basic sustenance and shelter? This country is supposed to be a beacon of democracy, good governance, liberal values and justice. Ha! We have to stop preening ourselves if we think so but look at how other countries we like to say we are better than to find out the reality. Look at how welcoming Germany and Sweden are being to refugees. Look at how Denmark equips itself to look after the less fortunate of their successful economy. If we care about values, let us elect a government which has some of the sort we aspire to, instead of one which sneers at difference and misfortune.

Hypocrisy or Hippocrates? What should we expect from our politicians?

Politics must surely be rooted in some degree in a philosophical framework. There must be a sense of purpose beyond mere acquisition of power and self-interest. To the Right this tends to focus on individualism, self-reliance and the Small State; to the Left on mutuality, community and shared responsibility. The common theme binding the whole spectrum must be the well-being of the country governed. How that well-being is measured is again a dividing issue. For some, it is all about economics [money] whilst for others, it concerns the people who constitute the nation. Such philosophical musings are an important backdrop to policy and the pronouncements of political leaders. There is nothing wrong in a devout Right-wing government unashamedly announcing policies which reduce taxation on individuals, insofar as this is what it was elected to do. There is nothing wrong in a left-of-centre governing party taxing companies and individuals more highly in order to fund more effective public services. What is wrong, is for the one cynically to claim the clothes of the other - to claim that taxing people more is doing them good; that removing rights and social security is to help people; that squeezing the poor to pay for the sins of the wealthy is in any way morally right. This is pure hypocrisy.

The Tory government seems unashamed in behaving in such a way, presumably in the search for outcomes which please its adherents. But this is not acting for the well-being of the population, merely for some of them. It may [or may not] work in achieving financial goals, which are the false gods they seem to worship but whether it does or not, let us at least be sold the truth.

The State is not just money but people. Any political philosophy should be open as to its purposes and its impacts on people's lives.  John Stuart Mill wrote of moral behaviour as causing the least harm to the largest number; the Hippocratic Oath, sworn for many years by the medical profession, commands "First, do no harm". Perhaps politicians of all parties should be bound by a similar oath on coming to Parliament, so that they are able to be held to account against a philosophically based but humane yardstick and reminder about the motivations which should drive them. Doing least harm would seem a good starting point.

Lets show some humanity to migrants

We ask readers to use your influence to persuade the UK Government and EU Council of Ministers to act at once to alleviate the living conditions of migrants in Europe. To date, many pronouncements have been made and some action taken to reduce the flow of desperate people both into Europe via Italy and Greece and internally between France and UK but little has been said or done of a humanitarian nature.

 

Whether they are asylum seekers or not, all are human beings, mostly with no money nor possessions. Many have suffered long and severe privations even before arriving at our shores. Whether welcome or not, they all deserve treatment as fellow humans: sustenance; health care; shelter; hygiene and respect. It is shameful that this country and our equally affluent neighbours cannot find it in our hearts and collective pockets to provide what we would certainly contribute were these refugees in a far off land. Humanitarian action is a sign of strength, not a weakening of resolve in border policy.

 Surely we can collaborate with our partners in Europe to establish and resource proper camps in key migration bottle-necks, be these Lampedusa or Lesbos, Kos or, parochially, Calais? Such a step would not only show our humanity but actually impose some order on the chaos and even permit processing of asylum applications without the risks to life and limb currently taken by so many desperate people who are surely our collective responsibility.

Language is politics

Words are the vehicles of ideas. Great art can, it is true, convey feelings and even concepts to some degree but almost always by implication. Explicit ideas require words if they are either to be articulated,  communicated and understood. Bloggers use written words; parliamentarians use speech. In whichever form, users of words have a responsibility commensurate with their position and audience. One would hope that great responsibility of this kind would be vested in those in whose hands trust is placed to manage great matters, such as running governments. How disappointing it is when, too frequently, those to whom we should look for responsibility choose words inappropriately, especially on matters of great sensitivity. In recent weeks commentators, political leaders and their messengers have seen fit to describe fellow humans as "cock-roaches", "swarms" and "marauding", as if those they refer to are lesser beings. Words like these do not belong in public discourse about innocent and often vulnerable migrants - for it was in this context that they were applied. Whatever political burden migration may place on a country, those concerned have human rights. Many are where they are because it is intolerable to be where they came from. They are all people like those who belittle and demonise them, who are more fortunate.

We should all respect them and demand similar respect of those who are fortunate enough to have a public platform. On such platforms, words should be chosen which lead to the speaker as well as the objects of their speech being respected. This applies equally to those jockeying for esteem and positions of power over others. Disrespect for opponents is becoming all too prevalent in party politics. Misusers of language who know better deserve no respect. Politicians should note, if they wish to be re-elected.
Tom Serpell

Mine is not a lone voice in this part of the country

There needs to be a credible alternative movement to counter the inexorable drag to the right that Blairism has engendered for the last 18 years.  Contrary to many media commentators, I believe that there is more of an appetite for more left wing ideas than many believe, especially amongst the young who are being systematically disenfranchised by the ruling regime, unfortunately enabled by the current labour leadership.  (As far as I am concerned HH's stance on the welfare bill was shameful, and AB's equally risible).

I work for a local housing charity/association and I can see how support for those most vulnerable in society is being corroded systematically on a daily basis, dressed up as the  war on "scroungers", (despite more than 50% of housing benefit being awarded to those in work).  This narrative really needs to be challenged but I don't see that happening under YC, AB or LK, therefore JC has my vote as things stand.  I just want to see a true opposition and just do not see that happening under "Torie-"Lite".
Cheryl Herriot
East Hoathly

This selection process is ridiculous!

Could the Labour Party really have found a worse system for choosing a new leader than it has?

A General Election lasts just 8 weeks, for 20m voters to elect 650 MPs, across the whole country. We are told that it requires twice that length of time for 0.25m members, most already relatively familiar with the candidates, who are armed with up-to-date contact lists, to select just one person (2 if you consider the deputy counts). This has to take place against the background of a rampant Tory Party, wreaking havoc with the lives of those whom Labour should be protecting, yet hardly noticed while the factions fight like rats in a sack. What a shambles and disgrace.

 

It had already been widely acknowledged that Labour made the mistake in 2010 of letting Tory lies about who was responsible for the deficit off the hook whilst Ed Miliband was elected, so what does the Party do but repeat the mistake and do it all over again? Osborne commands the media, claiming as "progressive" his imposition of yet more penal penury on the neediest; and the Party which should speak for them and to them argues among itself but publicly.

 

If hustings are essential, hold them daily over a short period, filming them for streaming or broadcasting. Let candidates publish their CVs and manifestos online so that anyone can read them at will. But 16 weeks of uncertainty, back-biting, neglect of Opposition and just looking incompetent is inviting oblivion, no matter who wins. We cannot wholly blame Ed M for resigning after his rejection, but maybe on reflection the Party should have been more loyal and persuasive of him at least to oversee the transition. As it is, those responsible for the process are every bit as culpable for whatever period is we have in the wilderness as the leader who arises from it.

Tom Serpell

Loyalty in politics?

Anyone in their right mind will say that loyalty is a good thing, will they not? Certainly the opposite is frowned upon. If we say someone is loyal to their spouse, that is only what is expected from their commitment. If we display loyalty to our employer, this is what we are paid for. But loyalty can be played like a card in the political game without quite the same clarity. An MP voting loyally for their party (as instructed by the Whip) may please the hierarchy but will this same action be seen as loyal to the wishes of the voters of their constituency or even to his/her own conscience?

"I have been a loyal Labour all my life" you hear on the doorstep How can this be when the Labour leadership can swing from Michael Foot to Tony Blair in such a life-time? Is this the same Party in each case, to which loyalty is expected? You could argue that the loyalty is to the values of the Party rather than to the Leader with some credibility yet does anyone seriously believe that such divergent leaders espoused identical values? We can but hope. Similarly how can we find the common factors linking the leadership candidates, when one is berated as a "Tory-lite" and another as a "Socialist voter-repellent"?

So when we cast our vote for Leader or Party, how are we to select if not on blind loyalty? Perhaps for the values we as individuals conclude matter. If power trumps principle, in our thinking, so be it. If principled opposition is enough, go for that. But probably the second worst loyalty in this context is that based on habit - "I have always voted X". The worst? "My [father/mother/family] has always voted X".

Humans are tribal, so it is understandable that the wish or habit of a chosen tribe is followed but in 21st century Britain most of us adhere temporarily  to several tribes. In this context, individuals need to be clear on  our own values to which we are loyal. Then we can vote accordingly, avoiding choices which may let us down.
Tom Serpell